Re Johnson's criticism, often linked, as you mentioned, to his politics and prejudices. Most often menioned in his criticism of Milton's "Lycidas," which, like much, is simply misunderstood by later critics because they did not read it in context. It begins with what the poem is NOT, which should have been a clue to some outside source to which he was responding. Johnson wrote for his time. And in his time the Wartons and others of the Whiggish, romantic sort were elevating that great poem over the greater epic, "Paradise Lost." They were using it as a touchstone for what poetry should be. It is against the backdrop of their writings and editions of Milton's work that his infamous criticsm of "Lycidas" must be read to be understood. The older I get, the savvier I realize Sam'l Johnson was.
I am intrigued: this was the subject of my thesis, and at the time I found no agreement. But I can only read one page of the article. Can you supply more? I currently do not have access to Jstor. As I began to read other criticisms of "Lycidas," which happens to be one of my favorite pieces of literature, it was clear the Wartons, Newton, et al were not reading the poem Milton wrote. They regarded it as highly "romantic,"deeply personal. I know they lacked a critical vocabulary that would afford more clarity and flexibility. But "wild" is a word they most often used to describe that tightly controlled poem, written within the general framework of a well-known genre. It would not have been the poem it was had Milton not had the genre to work with and against. I believe most of Johnson's work in "The Lives of the Poets" must be seen not merely as responses to the works themselves, but to the manner in which contemporary critics are understanding them. I really would like to see the entire article. Thanks again.
the link isn't gated---you should be able to download it or click the arrows to read it on browser. if not try searching the title in Google Scholar for another version maybe?
This is an excellent example of what I consider genuine skepticism: an openness to the unbelievable and mysterious, while simultaneously demanding evidence and reason.
A further note about ghosts during that era. My research for upcoming book went down this rabbit hole for necessary reasons! A generally accepted academic theory is that post-reformation, the general population lost "permission" to beseech saints as an intermediary to convey prayers for the benefit of lost souls. Combined with the Swedenborgian notions (taken as potentially actual science) that souls are comprised of particles and that spiritual energy is tangible and can be directed, unleased a trend for "spirit talking." Mesmer's theories of "animal magnestism" are thrown into the mix and by Johnson's era EVERYONE was willing to believe or at least entertain the idea that souls could communicate from the ethereal plane. It was not consider Woo but serious science to explore reports of ghosts and spirit communications seriously.
In the States a generation prior to Boswell, infamous Puritan Cotton Mather, was actively involved in investigating reports of spiritual anomalies and pursuing legal justice. (One such investigation resuted in the hanging of poor Gaelic-speaking scullery maid, Ann Glover in 1688, who was determined to be possessed by the devil's minions because none of the Englishers understood the máthairtheanga.)
All this to say, Johnson investigating "ghost stories" would be very much expected during his era. He was not indulging in fanciful thinking but scientific enquiry (as defined by the era).
Speaking with the Dead in Early America by Erik R. Seeman was indispensable and unlocked an entire new pathway for me to tell the story. Highly recommend. (Though he is focused on the colonial US, one can't get there without England of the same era as they were essentially the same country and mostly the same culture.) LINK to American Amazon which has more details about the book: https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Early-America-American-Studies/dp/0812251539
Re Johnson's criticism, often linked, as you mentioned, to his politics and prejudices. Most often menioned in his criticism of Milton's "Lycidas," which, like much, is simply misunderstood by later critics because they did not read it in context. It begins with what the poem is NOT, which should have been a clue to some outside source to which he was responding. Johnson wrote for his time. And in his time the Wartons and others of the Whiggish, romantic sort were elevating that great poem over the greater epic, "Paradise Lost." They were using it as a touchstone for what poetry should be. It is against the backdrop of their writings and editions of Milton's work that his infamous criticsm of "Lycidas" must be read to be understood. The older I get, the savvier I realize Sam'l Johnson was.
You might enjoy this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3031647?seq=1
I am intrigued: this was the subject of my thesis, and at the time I found no agreement. But I can only read one page of the article. Can you supply more? I currently do not have access to Jstor. As I began to read other criticisms of "Lycidas," which happens to be one of my favorite pieces of literature, it was clear the Wartons, Newton, et al were not reading the poem Milton wrote. They regarded it as highly "romantic,"deeply personal. I know they lacked a critical vocabulary that would afford more clarity and flexibility. But "wild" is a word they most often used to describe that tightly controlled poem, written within the general framework of a well-known genre. It would not have been the poem it was had Milton not had the genre to work with and against. I believe most of Johnson's work in "The Lives of the Poets" must be seen not merely as responses to the works themselves, but to the manner in which contemporary critics are understanding them. I really would like to see the entire article. Thanks again.
the link isn't gated---you should be able to download it or click the arrows to read it on browser. if not try searching the title in Google Scholar for another version maybe?
Incredibly savvy, I agree.
This is an excellent example of what I consider genuine skepticism: an openness to the unbelievable and mysterious, while simultaneously demanding evidence and reason.
A further note about ghosts during that era. My research for upcoming book went down this rabbit hole for necessary reasons! A generally accepted academic theory is that post-reformation, the general population lost "permission" to beseech saints as an intermediary to convey prayers for the benefit of lost souls. Combined with the Swedenborgian notions (taken as potentially actual science) that souls are comprised of particles and that spiritual energy is tangible and can be directed, unleased a trend for "spirit talking." Mesmer's theories of "animal magnestism" are thrown into the mix and by Johnson's era EVERYONE was willing to believe or at least entertain the idea that souls could communicate from the ethereal plane. It was not consider Woo but serious science to explore reports of ghosts and spirit communications seriously.
In the States a generation prior to Boswell, infamous Puritan Cotton Mather, was actively involved in investigating reports of spiritual anomalies and pursuing legal justice. (One such investigation resuted in the hanging of poor Gaelic-speaking scullery maid, Ann Glover in 1688, who was determined to be possessed by the devil's minions because none of the Englishers understood the máthairtheanga.)
All this to say, Johnson investigating "ghost stories" would be very much expected during his era. He was not indulging in fanciful thinking but scientific enquiry (as defined by the era).
Very interesting, thanks! Can you recommend any good reading?
Speaking with the Dead in Early America by Erik R. Seeman was indispensable and unlocked an entire new pathway for me to tell the story. Highly recommend. (Though he is focused on the colonial US, one can't get there without England of the same era as they were essentially the same country and mostly the same culture.) LINK to American Amazon which has more details about the book: https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Early-America-American-Studies/dp/0812251539
Sounds great, thanks